2000

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1961 Tuesday, 24 October 2000.
[1] From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 20 Oct 2000 10:48:16 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 11.1956 Re: Fops
[2] From: Norman J. Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 20 Oct 2000 13:08:42 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 11.1950 Re: Fops
[3] From: Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 20 Oct 2000 13:23:29 -0400
Subj: SHK 11.1956 Re: Fops
[4] From: Richard Regan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 20 Oct 2000 22:35:39 EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 11.1956 Re: Fops
[5] From: Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 21 Oct 2000 10:47:52 -0400
Subj: RE: SHK 11.1956 Re: Fops
[6] From: Sophie Masson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 24 Oct 2000 12:38:02 +1000
Subj: Words Are Things
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 20 Oct 2000 10:48:16 -0400
Subject: 11.1956 Re: Fops
Comment: Re: SHK 11.1956 Re: Fops
>The ink stains Shakespeare marked on paper direct the
>reader/audience to a certain perception of the character. The near
>universal appeal of Shakespeare, across cultures, class, generations,
>etc., demonstrate how powerful those ink stains can be.
writes Philip Tomposki.
My point is that ink stains do not direct to a "certain perception." It
is very uncertain what a reader will come up with. For example, Iago
says that he fears that Othello has been sleeping with his wife, Emilia.
Is he telling the truth or is he lying? Is he motivated by jealousy or
not? I assume that different readers come up with difference answers.
And I can only interpret the stains if I know the language of the
stains.
Yours, Bill Godshalk
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Norman J. Myers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 20 Oct 2000 13:08:42 -0500
Subject: 11.1950 Re: Fops
Comment: Re: SHK 11.1950 Re: Fops
Re: Words on the page and what they do, or don't do.
It seems to me that if Will didn't see pictures in his mind and hear
voices in his head - specifically "pictures" and "voices" of Burbage,
Kemp, Armin, Hemmings, himself and the rest of the guys in the company
- he wouldn't have been much of a PLAYWRIGHT. Likewise, maybe he saw
"pictures" of the audience's reacting.
So maybe the "fop" (to return to the original thread) he "saw" when he
set down the words to be spoken by Osric was the kind of "fop" he knew
the actor for whom he was writing the part could play.
Anything else makes my head hurt.
Cheers,
Norman Myers
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 20 Oct 2000 13:23:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Fops
Comment: SHK 11.1956 Re: Fops
Philip Tomposki dredges up that weariest of fantasies:
'The near universal appeal of Shakespeare, across cultures, class,
generations, etc. . . .'
Of course, I cannot speak for those millions of Bedouin tribesmen,
Brazilian Indians, Chinese peasants or Mongolian nomads who nightly pore
over Folio and Quarto. However, I am aware of populous areas of London,
Birmingham, Cardiff, and even Stratford upon Avon, where the Bard's
capacity to enthrall and delight is not a truth universally
acknowledged, or even mentioned if one wishes to avoid the possibility
of physical unpleasantness. Do words like 'out', 'get' and 'more',
drift into minds other than my own?
T. Hawkes
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Regan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 20 Oct 2000 22:35:39 EDT
Subject: 11.1956 Re: Fops
Comment: Re: SHK 11.1956 Re: Fops
Has anyone yet brought up Boyet in LLL?
Richard Regan
Fairfield University
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 21 Oct 2000 10:47:52 -0400
Subject: 11.1956 Re: Fops
Comment: RE: SHK 11.1956 Re: Fops
Larry Weiss writes: "Can't we drop this unproductive nonsense and agree
that words do have meanings; otherwise don't bother responding to this
post as you don't understand it and I won't have the vaguest notion of
what you are trying to say."
I do think I follow this. In fact, it has the depressing ring of deja
vu coming from the fact that this argument is now 25 years old. Poor
Stanley Fish: he thought he had made his point. But since I have been
teaching some of Fish's classic pronouncements in critical theory
classes of late, let me reply in his spirit. We all agree words have
meanings. But we don't, and never will, all agree they mean the same
thing unless we are in the same or very similar interpretive
communities. There was once a day when English studies was felt by many
to be a club of like-minded gentlemen of literary bent from the right
schools, and such agreement was the "natural" order of the day. That day
has passed. And thank goodness.
Best,
Hugh Grady
[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sophie Masson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 24 Oct 2000 12:38:02 +1000
Subject: Words Are Things
I thought this might be of interest to listmembers given the recent
debate about whether characters are real. It was forwarded from another
list where people have been having a similar kind of debate!
Sophie
Words are things; and a small drop of ink
Falling like dew upon a thought, produces
That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think.
-Lord Byron,(1788-1824)